Background:

The Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic (“MoI”) is currently conducting informal consultations with other relevant national stakeholders regarding the wider use of alternatives to detention. These consultations are particularly focused on families with minors, who usually only transit through the Czech Republic's territory. These discussions within the informal working group, which is composed of experts with different backgrounds aim to increase the use of available alternatives to detention while maintaining their effectiveness at the same time. In this context, the Czech Republic is seeking experiences from other Member States regarding the use of alternatives to detention and their practical feasibility.

Respondents:

18 EMN Member and Observer Countries (including BE) provided a public answer to this ad hoc query.

Findings:

A preliminary analysis of the results of the ad hoc query shows that:

• Most respondents reported that they do not have an established ranking of which alternatives to detention are more commonly used. However, some countries share rankings based on (partial) data collected. HR reported a ranking based on data from the last four years, showing that the most common measures are the obligation to report, stay at a specific address and the money deposit.
   
• Only 5 out of 18 respondents (BG, EE, HU, LV, SI) reported having records of the number of individuals granted an alternative to detention who have absconded.
   
• EMN Member and Observer Countries use various assessment methods to determine the effectiveness of the imposed alternative to detention. For example, in CZ, the effectiveness is assessed during the procedure following the apprehension of the person concerned. Factors considered include the individual's statements, previous migration history, and ties to the territory. The effectiveness of the alternative to detention is usually assessed before its imposition.
   
• Most EMN Member and Observer Countries do - before imposing an alternative to detention - consider specific indicators that the person concerned may not be suitable for the alternative to detention. In BE, the Immigration Office assesses factors like the risk of absconding, vulnerability, and the suitability of available alternatives. They consider all relevant aspects discussed during individual case management coaching sessions with migrants and other pertinent information in the individual's record. In LT, courts individually assess detention or alternative measures for foreigners based on the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners. This includes evaluating personal, family, social, and economic circumstances to tailor decisions to each case.
   
• Respondents reported various approaches to alternatives to detention for families with children. In AT, lenient measures are prioritised for minors and families. According to Austrian law, minors under the age of 14 must not be detained pending removal. Detention pending removal of minors over the age of 14 may only be ordered in justified, exceptional individual cases. They must be detained separately from adults in age-appropriate detention rooms. However, if detention pending removal has been imposed on a parent/legal guardian, they must always be detained together with them. Alternatives include mandatory accommodation and periodic reporting to the police. BE offers Individual Case Management (ICAM) trajectories and Open Family Units. In BG, an individual assessment is made for each case, prioritising the child's best interest, with the strictest measures imposed only if there is a risk of absconding. In CY, vulnerable groups such as mothers, pregnant women, sole guardians, minors, or those with serious health issues are not detained. For irregular migrant families, usually, only the father is detained if there is a risk of absconding or criminal history. Alternatives to detention include regular reporting to authorities and occasionally depositing a financial guarantee.

For further details, please read the compilation of answers attached above.